Going Evasive, strickly fair?

[Kevin Clark]

Just a thought but is it fair that when the Evasive special action is employed the opponent knows staight away that the manoeuvre is a success or failure, often before commiting planes/vessels to torpedo runs?

Just a tweak but would it not be fairer to roll after all movement is completed?

Alternatively the crew quality check could be translated to a dodge roll made for each attack gaining the reroll only for the hits that are successfully evaded.

 

[lastbesthope]

But would it be fair to the player going evasive if they don't know if they get the benefits of the action until they have put themselves in harm's way?

LBH

 

[Kevin Clark]

But would it be fair to the player going evasive if they don't know if they get the benefits of the action until they have put themselves in harm's way?

LBH

Possibly, but I don't think the suspense would kill me and I would weigh that against my enemy not knowing if I have the benefit. Although surely the player commits to the action and then rolls the dice in the movement phase and so have had to as you put it, put themselves in harms way?

A matter perhaps for the player concerned, although ships don't tend to start zigzagging until they are already in harms way and the game mechanic does allow a potential attacker to not attack a given ship on the basis of the success or failure of the manoeuvre roll, which is my bone of contention.

Could pilots single out a ship that is not zigzagging in exactly the right way or hold off the attack until the ship makes a fatal error? I've never flown against a warship to know. From what I've read, however, it works along the lines of: sight the enemy, engage the enemy and then make like the shepard.

So, overall I'd say, not very fair at the moment and as I said, a very small tweak.

 

[juggler69uk]

I think the point is more apparant when the weapon is the one shot Torp from a DD, He gets to wait and use it against a Non evasive target, and indeed may even get to pick from 3 or 4 that tried to go evasive and Only one failed (therefore he will probably choose the one that failed).

Where there was only one target he has the choice to fire or not Fire against a target on evasive manoeuvres.

But in this case he hangs around in the "danger zone" himself as a target if he doesnt fire

I think on the whole i'll play em as they are until officially modded

 

[Keith]

But would it be fair to the player going evasive if they don't know if they get the benefits of the action until they have put themselves in harm's way?

LBH

In my experience the evading player already has this problem. In most cases the choice is either go evasive (uncertain but superior "dodge") or flank speed (garenteed lesser "dodge") which is made before the effectiveness of evasive is known. I also suspect that many evasive maneuvers were carried out at flank speed.

This gives rise to another question. Should the ACTA limit to one special action apply to VAS. For example, in all the films I have seen making smoke has always been done at flnank speed (to maximizte the scree's effectiveness).

Another point. Just because an evasive maneuver is effective against one attack does not mean it will help against another. I'll concede that this is probably too complicatecd a consideration for a fast play rule system.

 

[lastbesthope]

This gives rise to another question. Should the ACTA limit to one special action apply to VAS. For example, in all the films I have seen making smoke has always been done at flnank speed (to maximizte the scree's effectiveness).

I don't have my rules with me, but aren't you limited to noe Special Action in VaS?

Also, wouldn't moving faster while laying smoke reduce effectiveness, by reducing the particle density (Same amount of smoke over a larger area/volume)

LBH

 

[Kevin Clark]

I don't have my rules with me, but aren't you limited to noe Special Action in VaS?

I think that is the point he's making. Albeit a little clumsily.

Also, wouldn't moving faster while laying smoke reduce effectiveness, by reducing the particle density (Same amount of smoke over a larger area/volume)LBH

Depends on the effective density of the smoke to start with. Thick smoke is thick smoke at 200,000 parts per million or at 100,000 parts per million. You still can't see through it.